The most underrated Hollywood movie in years...
3.5/4 stars

I saw this film in the cinema twice: first in California, then in Paris. In California, on opening weekend, the audience was bored to tears and booed(!) at the ending of the film. In Paris, six months after it opened, a packed house showed up and cheered the ending -- cheered.

Now, I'm not sure what that means. I do know that the movie was considered a flop in a America -- but the film actually turned a healthy profit worldwide. Why all the hate? The movie is far more intelligent than all the other sword-and-sandal movies released since... well... SPARTACUS. In fact, it has more in common with LAWRENCE OF ARABIA than GLADIATOR It's certainly more sophisticated than politically white-washed popcorn movies like BRAVEHEART (which is not remotely accurate in it's history, by the way) and ALEXANDER (history made personal a Hollywood egomaniac's selfish agenda). And the production value is outstanding. The largest free-standing set in film history was built for the film, and the climactic battle is definitely the most sensational and realistic we've ever seen.

So maybe Orlando Bloom doesn't have the gravitas that Russell Crowe had. Nobody does, so how can it be fair to compare? Buffing up with 40 more pounds of muscle and caked under desert grit, Bloom starts to look like a man pretty quick. And what's the point of getting a great actor to play the role if they don't look the part? Bloom belongs on a horse, swinging a sword. He was born for these roles, and he's fully aware that Balian of Ibelin is the greatest piece of character writing he's ever going to be offered, and he works himself raw to make the film work.

Ridley Scott tried for 30 years to make a medieval film, and nobody else on the planet could have directed this movie. He owns visually-driven cinema, and historical films (see GLADIATOR, THE DUELLISTS and 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE for proof). Scott waited a long time to make this film, choosing carefully, and the final result is the best script he's ever worked with, and the 192-minute director's cut is the best film he ever made. He's said so. The new release of the film is beginning to prove it, gradually, to the fickle domestic audience.

It was worth 30 years for Scott to create this masterpiece. It's the medieval film I've wanted to see ever since I was first exposed to storytelling. If you've seen the film, you have to see the director's cut before you can form an opinion. It's a totally different, far more rewarding film, and the most underrated Hollywood film since Kubrick passed away.

Review by Protozoid